(cont. from § 7) Response to interpellation 2022/23:323 on increased funds for welfare
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns increased funds for welfare and the government's economic policy. KD argues that the government prioritizes the core mission and that a third of the reform space was allocated to the municipal sector 1. KD emphasizes the need for prioritization, digitalization, and avoiding unnecessary expenses 1. KD denies that S doubled the appropriations for welfare and argues that S's proposed increase is a doubling of the increase in the general state grant, not of the total appropriations 2. S argues that the government lowers taxes for high-income earners at the expense of welfare 3. S claims that they doubled the appropriation for welfare in their budget alternative 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! It will be a bit strange to resume such an intense debate as I perceived it to be just before the question period. But I will do my best.
Mr. Speaker! There were a number of allegations regarding the government and the government's economic policy that I would like to address. Vepsä said, among other things, that he thinks the government is sending a signal that we should not save the welfare or that we should not see the children. These are general, sweeping allegations that, of course, have nothing to do with the truth.
That the government allocated a third of its reform space specifically to the municipal sector was a sign that we saw the children and that we wanted to save the welfare. We have also said that we will return after the summer, in connection with the presentation of the autumn budget, with the government's assessment of which reinforcements the municipalities may need further during the next year.
The government has not given any early budget promises regarding tax cuts; rather, it is a number of proposals on tax cuts and tax changes that have been referred so that the cost can be determined. It is no secret that this government would like to make a number of tax cuts to strengthen the labor supply, to achieve structural reforms in the labor market, and to strengthen the work principle. When we can make these, we do not know today, but the proposals are referred so that a cost calculation can be obtained. There is nothing strange about this, and it does not involve promises of large tax cuts over, for example, appropriations to municipalities and regions.
Some debaters were a bit worried that I would not see the need for resources but would instead believe that everything can be streamlined. That is not what I am saying. But in a situation like this, whether it concerns the state, municipalities and regions, or individual households, we naturally need to prioritize what truly is the core mission.
I was active in the Stockholm municipality. I note that approximately 25 million kronor were spent on painting bicycle lanes red in Vasastan. These are perhaps the types of measures that must take a backseat so that instead, investments can be made in social services, elderly care, and schools. All municipalities must keep in mind that the years 2023 and 2024 may not be the years for a lot of investments and expenditures that do not belong to the core mission. I think that is important.
There are enormous opportunities with digitalization, and I mean that the municipal sector does not use digitalization to the extent that is possible today. And I think the previous government did far too little to push municipalities and regions to go further in digitalization. A study shows that we can save 140 billion in public administration simply by using AI to a much higher extent. In comparison, the additional 6 billion that the Social Democrats included in their autumn budget for the municipalities pales quite a bit.
Digitalization creates enormous opportunities, and this is only in its infancy. Municipalities and regions can actually do much more of this, and there should be a clear plan for it moving forward. It will, in fact, be difficult to manage both the supply of skills and the financing of the welfare state if we do not increase digitalization in our municipalities and regions.
Mattias Vepsä (S)
Mr. Speaker! Many questions were asked by both the undersigned and fellow debaters. I think it is important to have a description of reality that is consistent with reality.
We Social Democrats doubled the funding for welfare in our budget alternative last autumn. We chose not to agree to the tax cut of 13 billion for high-income earners that the Sweden Democrats and Erik Slottner's government subsequently implemented.
We have had a debate here about the welfare needs, the children in school, the elderly in care, and the sick in healthcare and in the country's regions. People are currently struggling with enormous deficits due to the increased cost pressure, which we see with the rising prices.
It is a choice that the government has made, and it is a choice that we recognize from history. It is not the first time bourgeois governments have lowered taxes for high-income earners. It doesn't matter if it is inflation, recession or boom, or what the weather is outside the chamber—whether it is sun or rain. You lower the tax for high-income earners, and left behind are the people in the welfare state who have to take the hit. Right now, it looks very dark.
It is still gratifying that we got Stockholm in the final stretch. Erik Slottner mentioned Stockholm. There is a letter from the finance city councilor and the education city councilor with an appeal to the government to actually provide an answer. This debate, the previous debate, and probably the debate after this one will be about: When does the government see and hear, and when does the government make a difference for welfare? When will we get an answer? Will there be an addition to the country's municipalities and regions so that the children in school do not take the hit when prices skyrocket?
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I think I have answered the last question quite a few times. Does the government see the problem? Yes, we do. We are following the developments closely. That was also why we prioritized this highly in the budget that we submitted for 2023. When will the decision come? It will come after the summer, in connection with when we present the autumn budget. As Member Vepsä knows, one usually releases some news along the way, so the decision will probably come some time before the autumn budget itself is to be presented in its entirety.
Then I think one should be careful with the truth. Now Vepsä said that the Social Democrats doubled the grants to welfare. That is not in accordance with reality. The government is increasing the general state grant by 6 billion. The Social Democrats propose 12 billion. That does not mean a doubling of the grants to welfare. It means a doubling of the increase of the general state grant. But your 6 billion is a pittance compared to the amounts of billions that exist in the municipalities' finances - now I do not have the figures in my head, which I as Minister of Local Government should have. It is state grants, tax revenues, and fees. In the total sum, 6 billion is a few per mille of the municipalities' finances.
There is talk of a doubling of the appropriations for welfare. It is clear that it is not that. It is a doubling of the increase of the general state grant. It is a very big difference compared to saying that it is a doubling of the appropriations for welfare.
Regarding targeted government grants, I actually do not think there were any increases at all compared to the government. Nor, in the Social Democrats' shadow budget regarding the budget amendment, were any extra appropriations given to the municipalities. There, the Social Democrats did not make any different assessment than the government. They proposed no extra appropriations to the municipal sector during 2023 and also gave no announcements regarding appropriations for 2024. I think one should sweep a bit in front of one's own door before jumping on the government that is currently in power.
It will be very interesting to see what the Social Democrats do with the threshold regarding the state income tax in their budget. We will see that in September.
I take this opportunity to thank you for a good debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.